1. This is an action to vindicate the right of residents
of the District of Columbia to to keep and bear arms under the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution, which guarantees the right
of law-abiding citizens to keep commonly-possessed handguns, including
semiautomatic pistols, and other firearms in the home for immediate
defense of their families and other lawful purposes.

Parties

2. Plaintiff Dick Anthony Heller is a resident of the
District of Columbia and a citizen of the United States.

3. Plaintiff Absalom F. Jordan, Jr. is a resident of the
District of Columbia and a citizen of the United States.

4. Plaintiff Amy McVey is a resident of the District of
Columbia and a citizen of the United States.

5. Defendant District of Columbia (“the District”) is
the Seat of the Government of the United States and a municipality
organized under the Constitution and laws of the United States.

6. Defendant Adrian M. Fenty is the Mayor of the District
of Columbia whose principal place of business is in Washington, D.C. He
is being sued in his official capacity.

Jurisdiction

7. Jurisdiction is founded on 28 U.S.C. § 1331 in that
this action arises under the Constitution and laws of the United States,
and under 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3) in that this action seeks to redress the
deprivation, under of color of the laws, statute, ordinances,
regulations, customs and usages of the District of Columbia, of rights,
privileges or immunities secured by the United States Constitution.

Background

9. On June 26, 2008, the United States Supreme Court held
in District of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S. Ct. 2783, 2821-22 (2008), that
“the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the
Second Amendment, as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful
firearm in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense.”

10. D.C. Code § Section 7-2502.01(a) provides in part
that “no person or organization in the District shall possess or control any firearm, unless the
person or organization holds a valid registration certificate for the
firearm.” The Heller decision invalidated the following provision of
the D.C. Code, § 7-2502.02(a)(4): “A registration certificate shall
not be issued for a: . . . (4) Pistol not validly registered to the
current registrant in the District prior to September 24, 1976 . . .
.” D.C. Code § 7-2501.01(12) provides: “‘Pistol’ means any
firearm originally designed to be fired by use of a single hand.”

11. The Supreme Court explicitly articulated that
handguns are constitutionally-protected arms because they are in common
use at this time, are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for
lawful purposes, are considered by the American people to be the
quintessential self-defense weapon, are the most popular weapon chosen
by Americans for self-defense in the home, and are the most preferred
firearm in the nation to keep and use for protection of one’s home and
family.

12. The Heller decision also invalidated D.C. Code §
7-2507.02, which provided: “Except for law enforcement personnel
described in § 7-2502.01(b)(1), each registrant shall keep any firearm
in his possession unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock
or similar device unless such firearm is kept at his place of business,
or while being used for lawful recreational purposes within the District
of Columbia.” Violation is punishable under § 7-2507.06 by
imprisonment for not more than 1 year and a fine of $1,000.

13. On July 16, 2008, Mayor Fenty signed into law the
Firearms Control Emergency Amendment Act of 2008 (“the Act”), which
the Council of the District of Columbia had passed the previous day.

14. The Act amended D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a)(4) to read
in part: “(4) Pistol not validly registered to the current registrant
in the District prior to September 24, 1976, except that the prohibition on registering a pistol shall not apply to: .
. . (C) Any person who seeks to register a pistol for use in
self-defense within that person’s home.”

“Machine gun” means any firearm which shoots, is
designed to shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot:

(A) Automatically, more than 1 shot by a single function
of the trigger; (B) Semiautomatically, more than 12 shots without manual
reloading.

16. Definition (B) above which includes semiautomatic
firearms in the meaning of “machine gun” is contrary to the ordinary
usage of those terms in the English language and in the laws of the
United States and of the States. The District considers a semiautomatic
firearm which does not shoot more than 12 shots without manual reloading
to be a “machine gun” under the theory that it “is designed to
shoot, or can be readily converted or restored to shoot” more than 12
shots, even though the person in possession of the firearm has no
ammunition feeding device that would allow it to do so.

17. Pursuant to the Act, on July 16, 2008, the Chief of
the District’s Metropolitan Police Department issued a Notice of
Emergency and Proposed Rulemaking which amended Chapter 23 of Title 24,
District of Columbia Municipal Regulations, to provide in § 2320.2:
“The Director may register any pistol of any caliber or shot capacity
so long as the pistol is not a machine gun as that term is defined in
section 101(10) of the Firearms Control Act of 1975 (D.C. Law 1-85; D.C.
Official Code § 7-2501.01(10)).”

18. As a result of the District’s extraordinary
definition and its interpretation by the District, ordinary handguns and
other firearms which are semiautomatic are considered to be “machine
guns” and may not be registered. The overwhelming majority of
handguns possessed in the United States are semiautomatic handguns, and
the Supreme Court in Heller held that handguns as a class are
constitutionally protected. As a consequence of the above, virtually the
only type of handgun the District will allow to be registered is the
revolver.

19. Regarding the process of registering a pistol, the
Act amended D.C. Code § 7-2502.03 to add: “(d) The Chief shall
require any registered pistol to be submitted for a ballistics
identification procedure and shall establish a fee for such
procedure.” No limit is set on the fee the Chief may impose.

20. Chapter 23 of Title 24, District of Columbia
Municipal Regulations imposes onerous requirements to register a pistol.
See §§ 2320.3, .4, .5. For a pistol that is already lawfully possessed
outside the District, the applicant must transport the pistol to the
Firearms Registration Section (FRS) of the Municipal Police Department (MPD).
If the pistol is a semiautomatic, it will be confiscated and the person
may be arrested. If it is a revolver, it must be subjected to a
ballistic identification procedure.

21. Reporting to the FRS, the person must submit the
application to register, acquire fingerprint cards, and provide
photographs, a driver’s license or letter from physician attesting to
vision good enough to drive, and proof of residency. The person must
take and pass a written test, pay fees for fingerprinting and
registration, and submit to fingerprinting. The fingerprint cards must
be submitted to the FRS, one for the office file and the other for an
FBI criminal record check.

22. The person must then await notification by mail from
the FRS that requirements for registration have been satisfied. No time
limit is prescribed. The person must then return to the FRS to complete
the process and obtain the MPD seal on the registration certificate.
Finally, the person must retrieve the registered pistol form the FRS and
transport it to home.

23. Additional requirements are imposed if the person
purchases a pistol from a licensed dealer. Currently in the District, no
licensed dealers exist which are open to the public.

24. Regarding registered firearms kept at home, the Act
amended § 7-2507.02 to read in part as follows:

Each registrant shall keep any firearm in his or her
possession unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger
lock, gun safe, or similar device, except that this requirement shall
not apply to:

(1) Law enforcement personnel described in section
201(b)(1);

(2) A firearm that is kept at the registrant’s place of
business and not the registrant’s home;

(3) A firearm while it is being used to protect against a
reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within the
registrant’s home . . . .

25. Under this provision, a person may not keep a
functional firearm for use in immediate self defense, and may not have
it assembled and unsecured by locking devices even for innocuous
purposes such as cleaning. The provision clearly states that a firearm
may be assembled, unlocked, and loaded only “while it is being used to
protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a
person within the registrant’s home.” (Emphasis added.)

26. Administration and enforcement of the provisions at
issue are by agents and employees of the District of Columbia under the
supervision of defendant Fenty.

Facts

27. Plaintiffs Heller, Jordan, and McVey are all eligible
under the laws of the United States and of the District to receive and
possess firearms. Plaintiffs are victims of crime, live in high crime
neighborhoods, or otherwise seek lawfully to possess in their homes
semiautomatic handguns and to keep firearms in a usable condition for
immediate self defense.

28. Pursuant to D.C. Code § 7-2502.03, the following
plaintiffs sought to register semiautomatic handguns which do not shoot
more than 12 shots without manual reloading, to possess in their homes
for lawful self defense:

(a) On July 17, 2008, plaintiff Heller applied to the
Metropolitan Police Department (MPD) of the District of Columbia to
register a Colt Model 1911 semiautomatic pistol with a magazine capable
of holding no more than six cartridges. Officials at the MPD denied this
application on the alleged basis that the pistol constituted a
“machine gun” and was unregisterable.

(b) On July 22, 2008, plaintiff Jordan applied to the MPD
register a target model .22 caliber semiautomatic pistol with a magazine
capacity allowing it to shoot no more than 10 shots. Officials at the
MPD denied this application on the alleged basis that the pistol
constituted a “machine gun” and was unregisterable.

29. But for the odd definition of “machine gun” in
D.C. Code § 7-2502.02(a) and District’s view that the semiautomatic
handguns at issue are machine guns, the District would have registered
the handguns.

30. On July 17, 2008, plaintiff McVey applied to the MPD
and paid the required fee to register a revolver type of “pistol.”
She was required to present herself at the MPD, be photographed and
fingerprinted, to undergo a background check, to pass a written test, to
exhibit proof of good eyesight, and to submit her revolver for
ballistics testing. To complete the registration, McVey is required to
present herself at the MPD on at least two more occasions.

31. On July 18, 2008, plaintiff Heller applied to the MPD
and paid the required fee to register a revolver type of “pistol.”
He was required to present himself at the MPD, be photographed and
fingerprinted, to undergo a background check, to pass a written test, to
exhibit proof of good eyesight, and to submit his revolver for ballistics
testing. To complete the registration, Heller is required to present
himself at the MPD on at least two more occasions.

32. Plaintiffs need to be able for purposes of lawful
self defense to make such handguns and other firearms usable by
assembling them, removing trigger locks, removing them from safes, and
loading them. Plaintiffs also need to be able to have their firearms
assembled and unlocked for legitimate incidental purposes, such as
cleaning, examining, and repairing to ensure that they are operable and
safe. However, D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 prohibits them from doing so.

33. In recognition of circumstances in which a firearm
may be necessary for immediate use for protection against deadly
violence and for other incidental purposes, § 7-2507.02 excepts from
this requirement a firearm kept at one’s place of business and law
enforcement personnel.

34. As a proximate cause of D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 and
the enforcement thereof by defendants District of Columbia and Fenty and
their agents and employees, plaintiffs are subjected to irreparable harm
in that they are unable to keep their firearms in a manner ready for
immediate use to protect themselves in their homes from attack by
violent intruders.

COUNT ONE

35. Paragraphs 1 through 34 are realleged and
incorporated herein by reference.

36 . The Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution provides: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to
the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.”

37. The District’s ban on semiautomatic handguns
amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of arms that is
overwhelmingly chosen by American society for the lawful purpose of
self-defense in the home. Semiautomatic pistols are issued to and
commonly possessed by officers of the Metropolitan Police Department for self-defense and other
lawful purposes.

38. By defining “machine gun” to include
semiautomatic firearms and applying that term to semiautomatic pistols
which do not shoot more than 12 shots without manual reloading, and
prohibiting the registration of such pistols, D.C. Code §§
7-2501.01(10) and 7-2502.02(a)(2) facially and as applied infringe on
the right of the people, including plaintiffs, to keep and bear arms as
guaranteed by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

COUNT TWO

39. Paragraphs 1 through 38 are realleged and
incorporated herein by reference.

40. The Act amended D.C. Code § 7-2502.03 to add: “(d)
The Chief shall require any registered pistol to be submitted for a
ballistics identification procedure and shall establish a fee for such
procedure.” No limit is placed upon the amount of the fee.

41. The above requires payment of a fee, the amount of
which is left to the boundless discretion of the Chief of Police, in
order to register, and hence lawfully to possess a pistol. Predicating
the right lawfully to possess a pistol as guaranteed by the Second
Amendment on the payment of any fee, and more so an undefined fee with
no limit according to the arbitrary will of the Chief, infringes on the
right of the people, including plaintiffs herein, to keep and bear arms.

42. Accordingly, D.C. Code § 7-2502.03(d) violates the
Second Amendment and is void.

COUNT THREE

43. Paragraphs 1 through 42 are realleged and
incorporated herein by reference.

44. The Act amended D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 to require
that “Each registrant shall keep any firearm in his or her possession
unloaded and either disassembled or secured by a trigger lock, gun safe,
or similar device . . . .” By exempting “(1) Law enforcement
personnel described in section 201(b)(1)” and “(2) A firearm that is kept at the
registrant’s place of business and not the registrant’s home,”
such provision acknowledges the need to keep a firearm in useable
condition for defense of self and others against an unlawful, sudden,
and deadly attack. However, in limiting the further exemption to “(3)
A firearm while it is being used to protect against a reasonably
perceived threat of immediate harm to a person within the registrant’s
home,” such provision unduly burdens the right of persons, including
plaintiffs, to render a lawful firearm in the home operable for the
purpose of immediate self-defense.

45. Accordingly, to the extent it fails to exempt a
firearm that is kept at the registrant’s home for immediate self
defense, and exempts only a firearm “while it is being used to protect
against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a person”
in such home, D.C. Code § 7-2507.02(3) infringes on the right of the
people, including plaintiffs, to keep and bear arms as guaranteed by the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

COUNT FOUR

46. Paragraphs 1 through 45 are realleged and
incorporated herein by reference.

The Council of the District of Columbia is hereby
authorized and empowered to make, and the Mayor of the District of
Columbia is hereby authorized and empowered to enforce, all such usual
and reasonable police regulations, in addition to those already made
under §§ 1-303.01 to 1-303.03 as the Council may deem necessary for
the regulation of firearms, projectiles, explosives, or weapons of any
kind in the District of Columbia.

48. The following provisions of the D.C. Code are not
“usual and reasonable police regulations . . . necessary for the
regulation of firearms,” nor could the Council reasonably deem them such:

(a) D.C. Code §§ 7-2501.01(10) and 7-2502.02(a)(2), to
the extent they define “machine gun” to include semiautomatic
firearms and apply that term to semiautomatic pistols which do not shoot
more than 12 shots without manual reloading, and prohibit the
registration of such pistols;

(b) D.C. Code § 7-2502.03(d), which preconditions
registration of a pistol on the payment of an undefined fee set by the
Police Chief and which has no limit; and

(c) D.C. Code § 7-2507.02(3), to the extent it fails to
exempt a firearm that is kept at the registrant’s home for immediate
self defense, and exempts only a firearm “while it is being used to
protect against a reasonably perceived threat of immediate harm to a
person” in such home.

49. The above provisions of the D.C. Code are not
“usual and reasonable,” and instead are highly unusual and
unreasonable. Under the laws of the United States and of every State in
the Union, a law-abiding citizen may possess a semiautomatic pistol in
the home, and may lawfully possess a pistol which has not been submitted
for a ballistics identification procedure requiring an undefined fee
determined by police authorities. Under the laws of the United States
and of every State in the Union, firearms may be kept in the home other
than unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock, gun safe, or
similar device, and not just while actually being used to protect
against a reasonably perceived threat.

50. Accordingly, to the extent D.C. Code §§
7-2501.01(10) and 7-2502.02(a)(2) prohibit the registration of
semiautomatic pistols which do not shoot more than 12 shots without
manual reloading, to the extent D.C. Code § 7-2502.03 predicates lawful
possession of a pistol on the submission thereof for a ballistics
identification procedure requiring an undefined fee determined by the
Chief of Police, and to the extent D.C. Code § 7-2507.02(3) fails to
exempt a firearm that is kept at the registrant’s home, such provisions are not
authorized by D.C. Code § 1-303.43 and are null and void.

WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that the Court:

1. Enter a declaratory judgment that to the extent D.C.
Code §§ 7-2501.01(10) and 7-2502.02(a)(2) prohibit the registration of
semiautomatic pistols which do not shoot more than 12 shots without
manual reloading, to the extent D.C. Code § 7-2502.03 predicates lawful
possession of a pistol on the submission thereof for a ballistics
identification procedure requiring an undefined fee determined by the
Chief of Police, and to the extent D.C. Code § 7-2507.02(3) fails to
exempt a firearm that is kept at the registrant’s home, such
provisions (1) infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear
arms, in violation of the Second Amendment to the United States
Constitution; and (2) are not authorized by D.C. Code § 1-303.43 and
are void.

2. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions and a writ
of mandamus requiring defendants District of Columbia, Adrian M. Fenty,
and their officers, agents, and employees to approve the applications of
plaintiffs to register semiautomatic pistols which do not shoot more
than 12 shots without manual reloading as were submitted and as in the
future may be submitted.

3. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions and a writ
of mandamus requiring defendants District of Columbia, Adrian M. Fenty,
and their officers, agents, and employees to register pistols without
submission thereof for a ballistics identification procedure requiring
an undefined fee determined by the Chief of Police.

4. Issue preliminary and permanent injunctions enjoining
defendants District of Columbia, Adrian M. Fenty, and their officers,
agents, and employees from enforcing D.C. Code § 7-2507.02 as applied
to a firearm kept at a registrant’s home for immediate self defense.